Jump to content

9590 temps


Recommended Posts

Before I start, I'd like to say that I cant stand those guys that lurk around forums and don't register unless they need help or have a question.  Unfortunately, today I have to be one of those guys.

Sorry about that.  

 

Second, please refrain from telling me what a mistake I've made with my purchase.  I knew the risks before buying but I believe I was blinded by my own arrogance.  So I basically already know what mistake I've made. 

So with that being said

 

My new build has the FX9590, UD3, and 16 gigs of gskill sniper 1866 (which the MB does not and will not recognize)

 

In all of my builds, I've rarely paid attention to my CPU temps unless I was doing any video editing.  And, even then, I wouldn't notice until I got a warning.  

 

4 days ago I put this rig together and I have not stopped obsessing over my CPU temps and they are all over the place.  There doesn't seem to be a average idle withing a couple degrees.  It bumps between 25-30.  As I type this, it's bouncing between 29-30.

 

I ran Prime95 last night for 6 minutes and I peaked at 45.  Windows movie maker peaks it around 47.  

But here is the thing, when I'm doing this, it downclocks itself.  

I was under the impression that downclocking is something that happens when there isn't sufficient cooling.  It seems that the only time the clock speeds are where they are suppose to be are with various background windows operations and then the temps jump to mid or upper 30s.  

In other words, I. Am. Confused.  

 

If that wasn't enough, I run Easytune 6 AND core temp on my second screen.  Both read differently.  On easy tune, I have two CPU temps.  The top is usually sits in single digit numbers.  The bottom seems to be the active temp.  (30 now).  Core temp matches the single digit number until catching up with easytune's second temp and then seems to read correctly.  

 

I'm just not sure what to think and as a result, I'm posting here for you good folks.  

 

Please tell me what you think.  

 

Oh and as I was posting this, core temp said I reached my threshold @14c.....???????

post-139964-0-21730200-1425054590_thumb.png

Edited by Hexagon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD cool 'n quiet is enabled, this will cause your CPU to downclock to benefit temperatures and lifespan.

This usually happens when the CPU doesn't require all of its power.

 

Solution? You could disable AMD cool 'n quiet in the bios and it will always be at the set frequency the processor should run at.

 

Be sure to have a good CPU cooler on there to compensate the heat you will get.

Also use realtemp to check your temperatures, it was always reliable for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned it's a feature of AMD's cool'n'quiet doing the down clocking/volting.  This is a good thing in 99% of situations.  In SOME cases you can get better overclocks if you disable it, but in modern times it's not as likely due to the CPUs being designed form the ground up to offer turbo speeds and variable voltages from the start.  

 

As to why it's a good thing, unlike overheating that causes it to downclock under heavy load this is only doing to occur when the CPU's full power isn't needed, and the speed modern CPUs can switch from low power to full speed is so fast that it's no longer a negative. (There were some early implementations of CnQ and Speedstep that were too slow to respond and in variable work loads would actually cause a small noticeable performance loss) This is now a very old tech in PC terms and very mature.  Especially with the insane power usage of the FX9590 I would keep it on so it isn't putting as much stress on itself and the motherboard's power regulation.  These small changes can account for a pretty big temp change even at idle.

 

As for your screenshot, no clue can't see the blurry mess, but I do remember Coretemp showing me some crazy number last time I was OCing an FX chip (as in idle temps 15C below ambient temperature) so idk that I trust it personally if I remember hardware monitor from CPUID seemed to be closer to reality though the temp sensors in CPUs aren't as simple as read a number and display it for perfect accuracy sadly. WarWeeny mentioned realtemp and If I remember it was about the same as either HWmonitor or CoreTemp in readings but i don't remember for sure and that's been several months back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...